Solar Power Now Cheaper Than The Grid In Hundreds Of Chinese Cities

Libertine

Moderator
Apr 2015
16,523
3,275
Katmandu
False. You are disputing what is actually happening, RIGHT NOW, in the REAL WORLD. Fossil fuels are MUCH more heavily subsidized than solar (or wind) power.
If we put solar panels on our houses, the government gives us tens of thousands, if we build a couple of dedicated fossil fuel generation plants we get nothing. Some thing for utilities, except they get fined.
 
Jan 2016
57,388
54,210
Colorado
If we put solar panels on our houses, the government gives us tens of thousands, if we build a couple of dedicated fossil fuel generation plants we get nothing. Some thing for utilities, except they get fined.
I have pointed this out before, but will do so again: You are flatly disputing the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD, all of whom bluntly say that fossil fuel subsidies vastly outweigh the much smaller subsidies renewable energy sources are getting:

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia

Impact of fossil fuel subsidies[edit]

The degree and impact of fossil fuel subsidies is extensively studied. Because fossil fuels are a leading contributor to climate change through greenhouse gases, fossil fuel subsidies increase emissions and exacerbate climate change. The OECD created an inventory in 2015 of subsidies for the extraction, refining, or combustion of fossil fuels among the OECD and large emerging economies. This inventory identified an overall value of $160 to $200 billion per year between 2010 and 2014.[14][15] Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency has estimated global fossil fuel subsidies as ranging from $300 to $600 billion per year between 2008 and 2015.[16]

According to the International Energy Agency, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies worldwide would be one of the most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases and battling global warming.[4] In May 2016, the G7 nations set for the first time a deadline for ending most fossil fuel subsidies; saying government support for coal, oil and gas should end by 2025.[17]

According to the OECD, subsidies supporting fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil, represent greater threats to the environment than subsidies to renewable energy. Subsidies to nuclear power contribute to unique environmental and safety issues, related mostly to the risk of high-level environmental damage, although nuclear power contributes positively to the environment in the areas of air pollution and climate change.[18] According to Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the International Energy Agency, without a phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, countries will not reach their climate targets.[19]

A 2010 study by Global Subsidies Initiative compared global relative subsidies of different energy sources. Results show that fossil fuels receive 0.8 US cents per kWh of energy they produce (the estimate of fossil fuel subsidies applies only to consumer subsidies and only within non-OECD countries), nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and bio-fuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies.[20]

In 2011, IEA chief economist Faith Birol said the current $409 billion equivalent of fossil fuel subsidies (in non-OECD countries) are encouraging a wasteful use of energy, and that the cuts in subsidies is the biggest policy item that would help renewable energies get more market share and reduce CO2 emissions.[21]
 

CtC

Mar 2019
12,604
4,504
California
I have pointed this out before, but will do so again: You are flatly disputing the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD, all of whom bluntly say that fossil fuel subsidies vastly outweigh the much smaller subsidies renewable energy sources are getting:

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia

Impact of fossil fuel subsidies[edit]

The degree and impact of fossil fuel subsidies is extensively studied. Because fossil fuels are a leading contributor to climate change through greenhouse gases, fossil fuel subsidies increase emissions and exacerbate climate change. The OECD created an inventory in 2015 of subsidies for the extraction, refining, or combustion of fossil fuels among the OECD and large emerging economies. This inventory identified an overall value of $160 to $200 billion per year between 2010 and 2014.[14][15] Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency has estimated global fossil fuel subsidies as ranging from $300 to $600 billion per year between 2008 and 2015.[16]

According to the International Energy Agency, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies worldwide would be one of the most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases and battling global warming.[4] In May 2016, the G7 nations set for the first time a deadline for ending most fossil fuel subsidies; saying government support for coal, oil and gas should end by 2025.[17]

According to the OECD, subsidies supporting fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil, represent greater threats to the environment than subsidies to renewable energy. Subsidies to nuclear power contribute to unique environmental and safety issues, related mostly to the risk of high-level environmental damage, although nuclear power contributes positively to the environment in the areas of air pollution and climate change.[18] According to Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the International Energy Agency, without a phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, countries will not reach their climate targets.[19]

A 2010 study by Global Subsidies Initiative compared global relative subsidies of different energy sources. Results show that fossil fuels receive 0.8 US cents per kWh of energy they produce (the estimate of fossil fuel subsidies applies only to consumer subsidies and only within non-OECD countries), nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and bio-fuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies.[20]

In 2011, IEA chief economist Faith Birol said the current $409 billion equivalent of fossil fuel subsidies (in non-OECD countries) are encouraging a wasteful use of energy, and that the cuts in subsidies is the biggest policy item that would help renewable energies get more market share and reduce CO2 emissions.[21]
Yes.All those agencies suck. Truth is ,the USA is Energy independent now. We are an OPEC Nation.
 
Jan 2016
57,388
54,210
Colorado
Yes.All those agencies suck. Truth is ,the USA is Energy independent now. We are an OPEC Nation.
The United States is not a member of OPEC. Your record of posting fact-free posts remains intact.
 

Libertine

Moderator
Apr 2015
16,523
3,275
Katmandu
I have pointed this out before, but will do so again: You are flatly disputing the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD, all of whom bluntly say that fossil fuel subsidies vastly outweigh the much smaller subsidies renewable energy sources are getting:

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia

Impact of fossil fuel subsidies[edit]

The degree and impact of fossil fuel subsidies is extensively studied. Because fossil fuels are a leading contributor to climate change through greenhouse gases, fossil fuel subsidies increase emissions and exacerbate climate change. The OECD created an inventory in 2015 of subsidies for the extraction, refining, or combustion of fossil fuels among the OECD and large emerging economies. This inventory identified an overall value of $160 to $200 billion per year between 2010 and 2014.[14][15] Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency has estimated global fossil fuel subsidies as ranging from $300 to $600 billion per year between 2008 and 2015.[16]

According to the International Energy Agency, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies worldwide would be one of the most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases and battling global warming.[4] In May 2016, the G7 nations set for the first time a deadline for ending most fossil fuel subsidies; saying government support for coal, oil and gas should end by 2025.[17]

According to the OECD, subsidies supporting fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil, represent greater threats to the environment than subsidies to renewable energy. Subsidies to nuclear power contribute to unique environmental and safety issues, related mostly to the risk of high-level environmental damage, although nuclear power contributes positively to the environment in the areas of air pollution and climate change.[18] According to Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the International Energy Agency, without a phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, countries will not reach their climate targets.[19]

A 2010 study by Global Subsidies Initiative compared global relative subsidies of different energy sources. Results show that fossil fuels receive 0.8 US cents per kWh of energy they produce (the estimate of fossil fuel subsidies applies only to consumer subsidies and only within non-OECD countries), nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and bio-fuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies.[20]

In 2011, IEA chief economist Faith Birol said the current $409 billion equivalent of fossil fuel subsidies (in non-OECD countries) are encouraging a wasteful use of energy, and that the cuts in subsidies is the biggest policy item that would help renewable energies get more market share and reduce CO2 emissions.[21]
I use around 23,000 kwh annually, that cost me around $2,000 annually. Post me a link where it's cheaper for me to offset that with commerically available solar PV. Where I live you get about 30% of rated capacity during daylight hours, and it's very sunny where I live.
 

CtC

Mar 2019
12,604
4,504
California
The United States is not a member of OPEC. Your record of posting fact-free posts remains intact.
Member? Here is a clue. O-P-E-C. It stands for Oil Producing and Exporting Countries. Does the USA produce OIL ? Yes. Does the USA Export Oil? Yes. It ain't a club.
 

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
56,442
44,936
Ohio
From post #2: China is also driving down solar prices around the world thanks to the scale of production and learning curve effects, according to Sam Geall, a China climate and energy expert at Chatham House.

That's why it affects you. It will affect you in the future. China is mass-producing so many solar panels that the learning curve effects resulting from this mass production is going to drive down the costs of solar panels at breakneck speed. The price of solar energy has already been falling exponentially. [There's even a NAME for that phenomenon: it's called the Swanson Effect.] Within five years, solar power is going to be so dirt-cheap that every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Jose in the world will be wanting to switch as soon as possible.

China will control this industry in the future, because of this. Sadly, many Americans seem unconcerned about losing the solar power industry to China. I find that very weird. I guess those are the Americans who think we can go back to coal mines and typewriters, instead of forging ahead into the future.
I remember when he had a gasoline "crisis" and the big three auto companies balked at the idea of manufacturing smaller, more fuel efficient cars. So people started buying Japanese and German cars. Eventually, after they almost went broke (cue Lee Iacocca and Chrysler and that big controversial loan) the auto industry woke up, but it was too late to get a lot of folks back because once they started buying Datsuns, Volkswagens and Toyotas, they couldn't see going back to American cars.

This same stubborn old man mentality is fucking us up with renewable energy as well. Coal fired power plants are closing here but Trump is still determined to champion it, fossil fuel demand is going down worldwide and Trump thinks the thing to invest in is LNG and coal and hey, let's open ANWAR up for drilling and export this stuff!

I'll bet these were the same guys who didn't invest in Microsoft when they had the chance because they couldn't see why anyone would want a personal computer.

I hope our next president removes all tax breaks for wealthy people and if they want them back, they can get them by investing in green energy and make Sheldon Adelson convert his casinos over to renewables also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigLeRoy
Jan 2016
57,388
54,210
Colorado
Member? Here is a clue. O-P-E-C. It stands for Oil Producing and Exporting Countries. Does the USA produce OIL ? Yes. Does the USA Export Oil? Yes. It ain't a club.
Here you go. Educate yourself, why don't you? OPEC IS a cartel, and the United States is NOT a member of it:

OPEC - Wikipedia
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blueneck